In the future, most NGT plants will only require an entry in a register instead of the risk assessment that has been the norm up to now. Such NGT plants would be legally equivalent to conventionally bred plants, i.e. largely deregulated, even if they are biologically different
Testbiotech warns against far-reaching deregulation of New Genetic Engineering plants
The new regulations will not only be applied to annual arable plants. Even wild, non-domesticated species, such as the belonging to trees, wild herbs, grasses, mosses or algae, and can also spread in particularly sensitive ecosystems, are likely to be released into the environment without further controls. What consequences this would have for nature and the environment would not be monitored. No measures are planned to remove such plants from the environment if necessary.

The EU Commission’s legislative proposal is not sufficiently scientifically justified and ignores the differences between new genetic engineering and conventional breeding in particular. It is true that many mutations also occur naturally in plants or are caused by methods used in conventional breeding. However, most of these mutations have no direct effect on the phenotype of the plants. If they actually change the properties of the plants, this usually does not go beyond the natural range of properties of the respective species. However, these biological limits do not apply to the gene scissors, or only to a very limited extent. Even if no additional genes are inserted, new genetic engineering can be used to trigger intended and unintended changes that go beyond the known characteristics of the species

Set limits to biotech!

In particular, the gene scissors CRISPR/Cas have the potential to alter gene functions and properties of plants in ways that would not be expected through conventional breeding. Compared to transgenic plants, the risks for humans and the environment are by no means lower: whereas previously genes were transferred across species boundaries, the characteristics of a species can now be changed beyond the range of its natural characteristics without the need for additional genes. The technical potential, but also the technical shortcomings, of tools such as CRISPR/Cas make it necessary that all genetic engineering organisms continue to be subject to close risk assessment in the future. This includes suitable analytical methods to identify the intended and unintended genetic changes caused by the processes of NGT. These changes must then be assessed in terms of their direct and indirect, immediate or delayed and cumulative long-term effects.

Testbiotech warns against far-reaching deregulation of New Genetic Engineering plants

The use of new genetic engineering is often justified by the fact that new solutions are needed to secure the world’s food supply in the face of climate change. However, new solutions cannot be considered sustainable if their use can lead to ecosystems being overloaded by mass releases of non-adapted NGT organisms, risks creeping unnoticed into food, breeding being hindered by patents and the interests of consumers being disregarded. At the same time, many expectations regarding the potential benefits of plants and animals from new genetic engineering seem far too high. Against this background, a technology assessment should be carried out in order to distinguish empty promises from realistic expectations and to be able to recognize negative effects on breeding, agriculture and food production in good time

Assess the impacts!

NGT plants that have the potential to persist, reproduce or spread in the environment for several years must be particularly closely scrutinized in this context and, if in doubt, must not be released. In general, the introduction of genetically modified organisms into the environment should be limited as much as possible. As is the rule elsewhere in sensitive areas of nature conservation, interference with the environment must be avoided as far as possible.

A large number of NGT organisms belonging to many species and with a wide range of different characteristics could soon be released into the environment. Many of them could spread uncontrollably and it is also to be expected that complex interactions will occur between the various NGT organisms. Similar to the pollution of the environment with plastic and chemicals, it does not have to be a specific genetically engineered organism that causes problems. Rather, the overall effects of different genetically engineered organisms and their interactions can be decisive. As these are living organisms, the environmental problems can be even more diverse and complex compared to previous pollution. Many genetically engineered organisms could also persist in the environment for a very long time and thus burden many future generations.

According to existing EU legislation, all organisms from new genetic engineering (NGT) must undergo a risk assessment. It has to stay that way! All intended and unintended genetic modifications specific to new genetic engineering must be assessed in terms of their risks to humans and the environment. In addition, a comprehensive technology assessment must be carried out before plants and animals that have been modified using new genetic engineering are used in agriculture.

NGT plants that have the potential to persist, reproduce or spread in the environment for several years must be particularly closely scrutinized in this context and, if in doubt, must not be released. In general, the introduction of genetically modified organisms into the environment should be limited as much as possible. As is the rule elsewhere in sensitive areas of nature conservation, interference with the environment must be avoided as far as possible.